What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[TwoSix]

It kills it, because my character who despises orcs and all they stand for, and would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it, has to successfully resist with a roll or be persuaded by a teary eyed orc. There would be no chance of that orc's success with my character, yet I still have to roll or be persuaded to do something my character would never do.

If I already know what my character would do in a situation before it comes up, than why did the GM run the scene?

To me, there's few things less interesting than a game where I'm simply demonstrating who my character is, rather than testing my character to see who they become. And me, as a player, making that decision does not feel like an actual test with actual stakes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem I have with this is that it puts a game like Pendragon, widely regarded as Greg Stafford's magnus opus, in the category of "eroding what RPGs are about" because of the system's need for Virtue/Vice checks.

Well, to me it does, and even though I love Arthurian stories this is the reason why I would never want to play this game. But obviously Stafford disagrees with me what the core of RPGs is.

I, personally, feel there's just as much creative artistry to be found in deciding how to portray a mechanical resolution, and create a narrative that captures that resolution in a way that's true to my character and the surrounding fiction, as there is in making the decision as to what to portray.

Perhaps. But at least you here admit what is actually happening. It is low-agency mechanics first collaborative storytelling. Which is perfectly fine, but often people who like these games try to deny that this is what's going on. And it personally is not what I seek from RPGs.

 

[TwoSix]

Perhaps. But at least you here admit what is actually happening. It is low-agency mechanics first collaborative storytelling. Which is perfectly fine, but often people who like these games try to deny that this is what's going on. And it personally is not what I seek from RPGs.

I'm not admitting anything; I'm celebrating it. What you view as poor design, I find more compelling.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If I already know what my character would do in a situation before it comes up, than why did the GM run the scene?

To me, there's few things less interesting than a game where I'm simply demonstrating who my character is, rather than testing my character to see who they become.

I agree with you this far.

And me, as a player, making that decision does not feel like an actual test with actual stakes.

But with this I cannot disagree more. I want my characters to put in situations which test their convictions, which force them to make hard decisions. But I want actually to be able to make that decision, or it seems utterly pointless to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

while i'm all for mechanical symmetry it's more symmetry with the entire rest of the game's resolution system than with the NPC's social checks specifically, and players don't exactly get to debate 'hold on i don't think it's right that Bladesworth would be weak enough to fail this STR save i think their DC should be higher' in the same way they say 'Bladesworth wouldn't be convinced by their argument'

though honestly this discussion is probably entirely moot given the resolution would more likely be resolved by a contested check rather than a set DC

Bladesworth's player is free to choose that his character believes that he is too strong to make that saving throw. And he is free to keep believing that the whole way down into the lava-filled chasm.

Clearly, the physical environment may disagree with him. ("I am one with the Force, the Force is one with me. I am one...ouch.").

Please explain how the physical environment can compel Bladesworth to take an action as if he were persuaded when in fact he is not persuaded.

 

[Bill Zebub]

you can't tell me someone who 'would just as soon stick a knife in the orc's head as talk to it' would let themselves get to the point of being face to face already in group negotiations before they raise an objection to the scenario? if their character really had such an issue it should've come up long before we were able to get to this point, either that or they don't actually object to orcs as much as they claim they do and the player just doesn't want to go down that narrative path.

Ah, more "I know what this character would do in this situation...."

Years ago, in a related discussion, somebody (who shall remain nameless) used the phrase "...what a wood elf would do". That has always bothered me. Who decides what a wood elf would do? Do all wood elves do the same thing? Why would anybody want to play a typical wood elf? Does the phrase "what a human would do" even make any sense?

 

[TwoSix]

But with this I cannot disagree more. I want my characters to put in situations which test their convictions, which force them to make hard decisions. But I want actually to be able to make that decision, or it seems utterly pointless to me.

And to me it feels like a violation of the Czege principle.

I want players to have agency over judgement calls, where there are two or more options uncertain options that need to have a choice be made between them. But fighting temptation, or exerting willpower, isn't a choice between two uncertain options (generally, I'm sure there are use cases where it can be framed that way), it's a test of character makeup and concept. It's a challenge with stakes, and those should generally be resolved via mechanics.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But with this I cannot disagree more. I want my characters to put in situations which test their convictions, which force them to make hard decisions. But I want actually to be able to make that decision, or it seems utterly pointless to me.

This sentiment...which I totally agree with, by the way...is repeatedly countered with the argument "but some players can't be trusted to do that in the way I would!"

Again, my response is that forcing them to do it isn't going to work, so if how other people roleplay...if what is in their heads... really bothers you that much, don't play with them. In which case you can trust all the players remaining at your table to resolve things without dice.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And to me it feels like a violation of the Czege principle.

I want players to have agency over judgement calls, where there are two or more options uncertain options that need to have a choice be made between them. But fighting temptation, or exerting willpower, isn't a choice between two uncertain options (generally, I'm sure there are use cases where it can be framed that way), it's a test of character makeup and concept. It's a challenge with stakes, and those should generally be resolved via mechanics.

"Can I roll high enough on the dice" is hella boring way to test one's beliefs to me. Instead create a situation where the loyal knight has to choose between betraying his king or betraying his true love. That's a real test of character and outsourcing the decision to the dice would utterly defeat the point of playing the character. I want to play the character, not just passively watch how they act as dictated by the dice. That is the crucial difference between RPGs and other media: we get to choose.

If that choice is taken away from me, I'll just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave; they can roll what my character does next.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"Can I roll high enough on the dice" is hella boring way to test one's beliefs to me. Instead create a situation where the loyal knight has to choose between betraying his king or betraying his true love. That's a real test of character and outsourcing the decision to the dice would utterly defeat the point of playing the character. I want to play the character, not just passively watch how they act as dictated by the dice. That is the crucial difference between RPGs and other media: we get to choose.

If that choice is taken away from me, I'll just hand the character sheet and the dice to the GM and leave; they can roll what my character does next.

Oh, you don't have to leave completely. You can root around in the kitchen ("WHERE ARE THE CHEETOS!?!?!") and then come back to find out what your character did.